"The web has been alight these past few weeks with the details of the Apple v. Samsung lawsuit. It's been a unique opportunity to peer behind the curtain of how these two companies operate, as the trial seeks to answer the question: did Samsung copy Apple? But there's actually another question that I think is much more interesting to the future of innovation in the technology industry: regardless of whether the courts say that Samsung copied Apple or not, would we all be better off if we allowed - even encouraged - companies to copy one another?" This is very relevant.

Most ridiculous thing I've read this morning. There are many reasons why this is just wrong. For now I'll just say this would kill innovation all together and stifle the upstarts who won't be able to compete with the entrenched (and rich) players that will just copy whatever the new innovation of the day is.

Or it could have the opposite effect, force companies to keep innovating to keep an edge. There are two decisive factors for buyers: features or price. If you have better features, you can justify a higher price and bring attention and consumers to your products. Hence it push you to innovate. More than if you own patents and can use them to block competition.

What I am saying is however not true for all technology fields, it mostly apply to computer systems. But given that it takes between 6 months to a year to bring new features to your customers, if, a company only copy, it will always be 6 months to a year late in the game, and people will stick with the innovative company.

Mayble, I'll start my own blog site, i'll copy the design of osnews.

Why would I visit your blog that will get the article only after the original website ?